Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, August 01, 2014

Mark Adomanis: Stephen Cohen and Katrina vanden Heuvel have now penned a truly shocking editorial at The Nation, one of the more shocking that I've read since the crisis in Ukraine exploded this past winter. Cohen and Heuvel don't content themselves with making the observation that the Ukrainian military has been inexcusably clumsy in its battle against the Russian-backed separatists or that some residents of Eastern Ukraine harbor resentments against the new government in Kiev. Cohen and vanden Heuvel, however, make a far more dramatic and bizarre indictment: that Ukraine's new pro-Western government was plotting to seize its own territory. Plotting to seize it's own territory? What?

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

sentinel

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Does that sound too extreme to be true? Well, here is what the article says:

If any professional "intelligence" existed in Washington, Putin's reaction was foreseeable. Decades of NATO expansion to Russia's border, and a failed 2008 US proposal to "fast-track" Ukraine into NATO, convinced him that the new US-backed Kiev government intended to seize all of Ukraine, including Russia's historical province of Crimea, the site of its most important naval base. In March, Putin annexed Crimea.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If Putin were sane he would realize that it doesn't matter if Ukraine joins NATO, NATO is never going to attack Russia. If Putin wants Ukraine, or any other nation, to be close to them economically, culturally, and possibly even as allies then he needs to offer them something like a real modern economy, freedom of speech, real democracy. He is unwilling to do any of these things so he can expect that it won't just be Ukraine that decides to leave him behind and move on towards the rest of the free world.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-01 09:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think Putin is concerned about NATO attacking Russia militarily (although he's happy to use that idea as propaganda to scare Russians to get them to support him). He's probably more concerned about the west cutting off his ability to economically strong-arm and blackmail Russia's neighbors, or allow them to do the same to him.

When the government in Kiev fell, Putin's reaction was very telling. Annexing Crimea the way he did showed the whole world he was afraid.

#2 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-08-01 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Ukraine Accused of Plotting to Seize Own Territory"

Wow, it's like...a marriage.

#3 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-08-01 11:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

The statement makes perfect sense when its put into context. Former elected (and corrupt)Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was deposed in a military coup launched by a group which evolved from WWII Nazis and renamed itself. This group enjoyed US support as did Osama bin Laden at one point in our history. This is the factual context of the controversial statement. No one in the western mass media will mention this troubling truth. Its similar to listening to Israel claim its defending itself while it is gobbling up territory. One aspect of the cold war never ended, economic warfare. Russian has dominated its neighbors economically since WWII. The United States has done exactly the same thing, spreading its tentacles around the world more than any other nation. Our presence in the Ukraine is as troubling to Russia as the Russian presence in Cuba is to us.

Note to Corky & Danni: In "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" author John Perkins repeatedly denies the existence of a "conspiracy." Instead, Perkins carefully discusses the role of corporatocracy:

"I was initially recruited while I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest and least understood spy organization; but ultimately I worked for private corporations. The first real economic hit man was back in the early 1950s, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., the grandson of Teddy, who overthrew the government of Iran, a democratically elected government, Mossadegh's government who was Time‘s magazine person of the year; and he was so successful at doing this without any bloodshed -- well, there was a little bloodshed, but no military intervention, just spending millions of dollars and replaced Mossadegh with the Shah of Iran. At that point, we understood that this idea of economic hit man was an extremely good one. We didn't have to worry about the threat of war with Russia when we did it this way. The problem with that was that Roosevelt was a C.I.A. agent. He was a government employee. Had he been caught, we would have been in a lot of trouble. It would have been very embarrassing. So, at that point, the decision was made to use organizations like the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. to recruit potential economic hit men like me and then send us to work for private consulting companies, engineering firms, construction companies, so that if we were caught, there would be no connection with the government". The name Bechtel comes up repeatedly in Perkins first hand account of his life, a runaway best seller.

This is economic warfare. Naturally the Government maintains plausible deniability throughout events in the Ukraine by using NGOs. But both Russia and the Unites States practice Orwellian double speak. There are only two issues in politics, money and morality. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights focuses on morality. But all that is lost in todays politics where only the money matters. Rethugs often successfully pretend to be concerned about morality on issues such as abortion, but I submit their underlying purpose is to keep poor people trapped in their poor place.

#4 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-02 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

The aversion to providing links usually indicates an embarrassment of the source.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-02 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

What for? Now you sound like a conspiracy theorist. Do you really have time to read it all? I feel like I'm performing a service while you deflect from the central issue of being well informed. OK here:

en.wikipedia.org

or from the horses mouth:

www.amazon.com

#6 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-02 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is economic warfare.

Perhaps it was before, but after the physical annexation of Crimea and the support of guerrillas declaring "independence" it became a very different type of warfare.

Its similar to listening to Israel claim its defending itself while it is gobbling up territory.

Israel and Russia have both been militarily expanding their territory beyond what it's been in recent years. Ukraine has not and the comparison of them trying to maintain their own post-Soviet territory to either of those is absurd.

#7 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-08-02 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe, if 3% participation in the current Ukrainian election is considered legitimate. The coup was definitely not legitimate.

#8 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-02 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

3% participation

How deep did you have to dig to pull that out of your ass? It was probably around 40-50% according to most reports I've read, even taking into account the areas where voting was disrupted and sabotaged by Russians.

The former president of Ukraine abdicated his position when he left not just the capital but the entire country, and was kicked out of his own party. It would be like if one of our presidents ran away after ordering excessive force against protesters here, causing a wider outrage. Even if the west were behind a chain of events that led to this, Putin's reaction was rash and foolish and played right into the hands of neocons on both sides who want to escalate a new cold war.

#9 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-08-02 10:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It was probably around 40-50% according to most reports I've read,"

Should be easy enough to prove with links.

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-02 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I read the 3% somewhere but I can't find it now. Search now says 55% participation nationwide with little participation in Eastern regions, probably because of the fighting. Clinton won with only 30% support.

#11 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-03 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's as easy as typing Ukraine election turnout 2014 into any search engine.

#12 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-08-03 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rethugs often successfully pretend to be concerned about morality on issues such as abortion, but I submit their underlying purpose is to keep poor people trapped in their poor place.

#4 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-02 02:57 PM | Reply |

Your statement could apply to both Ds and Rs. Politics and power is behind every policy and decision, not right or wrong. The Ds thrive politically on a large poor and minority populace. The Rs thrive on making the the rich richer. Both thrive too on a small wealthy populace that donates generously in self interest.

#13 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-03 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort